Armenia Could Be Left in the Cold with Growing Turkish, Russian Ties

Now, Turkey has come to violate the same treaty by virtually taking over Nakhijevan and establishing a military base there. One does not have to wonder against whom that base operates — Armenia and Iran.

Incidentally, only Armenia is beholden to the tenets of the treaty which defines its border with Turkey. The unsigned Zurich Protocols of 2009 were intended to replace or consolidate the terms of the Kars Treaty as far as the border issue between Armenia and Turkey was concerned.

Of course, it would sound politically correct to Turkey’s NATO allies if Ankara alleges that its military base in Nakhijevan serves as a counterbalance to the Russian base in Gyumri, Armenia.

Turkologist Ruben Safrastyan, the director of the Institute of Oriental Studies at the National Academy of Sciences in Armenia, has stated, “In my opinion, the Turkish military-political activity observed in recent years in Nakhijevan pursued far-reaching geopolitical goals. … The base in Nakhijevan is called upon over time to perfectly complement the already-established military-political axis of Turkey-Georgia-Azerbaijan.”

Safrastyan issued a further warning about the fallout from those developments in Armenia as he concluded his analysis: “Together with the above circumstances, all these create prerequisites for the emergence of a fundamentally new situation, and, accordingly, for the emergence of new challenges and threats to Armenia’s security. Both Armenia and Artsakh should be ready for this and raise the combat readiness of the armed forces.”

While the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Minsk Group co-chairs representing the US, Russia and France, as well as Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov invite the governments of the parties in the conflict to prepare their citizens for peace, we see on the other hand the emergence of an alarming situation. Either false hopes are being raised by the people in charge of overseeing the settlement or peace will be enforced at a very stiff price.

Can Armenia rely on its own armed forces to face the challenge or does it have to rely on the Russian military base to thwart this existential threat?

However, currently there is growing anti-Russian sentiment in Armenia. In fact, there is a very obvious and orchestrated vilification of Russia saturating the airwaves. Unfortunately, that campaign is fueled by recent crimes committed by Russian soldiers. In December, a woman was killed by a Russian soldier in Gyumri. A few years back, an entire family, including a baby, was slaughtered by another Russian soldier there. These painful incidents are being politicized and are used to call for the abrogation of the Russian-Armenian treaty regarding the military base.

Similar high-profile incidents take place near and around US military bases in Germany, Turkey, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, etc. Yet no party questions the existence of those military bases nor their significance for the security of the country.

This media campaign, coupled with some actions by the new government, have created distrust among the Kremlin’s strategic planners against Armenia.

A commentator, Yuri Simonyan, writing in the Russian Nezavisimaya Gazeta, states that “The Kremlin seeks proof of allegiance from the new authorities to keep developing the strategic alliance high on its agenda.”

Citing “well informed” sources, Simonyan writes that Russia’s trust in Armenia’s new government is still on “shaky ground” in light of recent inspections at Russian-owned companies operating in Armenia. Certainly it did not sit well with the Kremlin when Armenia sought trade and military ties with China and Sweden, nor Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s statement to John Bolton that Armenia “is open” to consider its options for buying military hardware from the US.

Pashinyan was in Moscow last week, when Armenia assumed the rotational presidency of the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU). He stated in his inaugural speech that he personally had voted in the past against the existence of the Russian base in Armenia but now it was his belief that the base was crucial for the country’s defense. That assurance was not sufficient to open the Kremlin doors to Pashinyan. President Vladimir Putin’s office announced that he was too busy to receive Armenia’s prime minister, though Pashinyan met with Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev.

It looks like there is a lack of understanding about the geopolitical situation in the region. Not only by the media pundits, but even some young parliamentarians who claim that the Russian base compromises Armenia’s sovereignty.

Political naivete is not new in Armenia. In 1921, the February uprising was started against Soviet rule, and the last prime minister of independent Armenia Simon Vratzian appealed to the Turkish government to help restore his party in power. And this appeal was made when the Turkish government had just completed the Genocide.

There is a long analytical article in Statfor, dated January 22, whose title is “What the Chill in Russian-Armenian Relations Means.” The significant statements in that analysis are the following:

• “If the Russian-Armenian relationship continues to fray, other powers, including the United States, Iran and Turkey, could make inroads in the Caucasus country and weaken Russia’s position.”
• “This in turn could force Russia to focus more on bolstering ties with one of Armenia’s biggest nemeses, Azerbaijan, raising the prospect of greater instability in the region.”

Pashinyan, the leader of the Velvet Revolution, had stated time and again that the sole purpose of the movement was to overthrow the corrupt regime and that it had no foreign policy agenda. It seems now that the movement indeed has a tilt, one which may  jeopardize its strategic partnership with Russia.

Political analysts were surprised that Russia moved its military base out of Georgia upon the request of the government, even before the expiration of the treaty. The same action was taken in Azerbaijan, from where the Russian listening post had withdrawn. Local politicians believed that these military assets were essential for Russian forces to project their posture in the Middle East. But later on, they discovered that Russia had developed its arsenal to hit targets in Syria, even from the Caspian Sea.

Therefore, it will be foolhardy for the pundits in Armenia to believe that the Russian base serves only Russian interests rather than Armenian one.

It is clear that storm clouds are gathering in the skies over the Caucasus. Russian-Turkish relations have almost returned to the days of Lenin and Mustafa Kemal (Ataturk).

Armenia can only operate according to the existing facts on the ground. Issues of sovereignty are manufactured arguments, as it is beyond Armenia’s means to challenge the Russian colossus — and survive.